Human relations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Human relations - Essay Example A strike (or industrial action less than a full stoppage of work) will be in breach of the contract of employment for two reasons. Firstly, the striker is failing to perform the contractual obligations to work and to obey lawful instructions. Secondly, by seeking to 2 cause disruption to the employer’s business, the striker is breaching the â€Å"implied term to serve the employer faithfully within the requirements of the contract†.It is to be noted that the taking of strike action is a breach of the employee’s contract of employment, even where all the obligations imposed on the trade unions by Part V of The Trade Union and Labor Relations (consolidation) Act 1992 have been fulfilled. Not only is a strike in breach of the worker’s contract of employment, we find that the breach is far reaching as we see in Secretary of State v. Aslef ICR 19, the inevitable breach of the duty of faithful services, that virtually all other forms of industrial action will br each the contract of employment, or refusing to carryout some aspects only of contractual duties. Such as in work slow downs. Further in Miles v. Wakefield MDC [1989] ICR 368 at 389, Lord Templeman states: â€Å"Any form of industrial action by a worker is a breach of contract which entitles an employer at common law to dismiss the worker. Also we find in Wiluszynski v. Tower Hamlets IBC [1989] IRLR 259, that in the event of an industrial action, the employer can also refuse to pay wages. Further in NCB v. Galley WLR 16, we find in the event of industrial action the employer can sue for damages. ... (Gibson LJ) It is to be noted that the taking of strike action is a breach of the employee's contract of employment, even where all the obligations imposed on the trade unions by Part V of The Trade Union and Labor Relations (consolidation) Act 1992 have beenfulfilled. Not only is a strike in breach of the worker's contract of employment, we find that the breach is far reaching as we see in Secretary of State v. Aslef (N0.2) [1979] ICR 19, the inevitable breach of the duty of faithful services, that virtually all other forms of industrial action will breach the contract of employment, or refusing to carryout some aspects only of contractual duties. Such as in work slow downs. Further in Miles v. Wakefield MDC [1989] ICR 368 at 389, Lord Templeman states: "Any form of industrial action by a worker is a breach of contract which entitles an employer at common law to dismiss the worker. Also we find in Wiluszynski v. Tower Hamlets IBC [1989] IRLR 259, that in the event of an industrial action, the employer can also refuse to pay wages. Further in NCB v. Galley [1958] WLR 16, we find in the event of industrial action the employer can sue for damages.Under current law in the UK, recognition is a matter of fact and not a legal status. There is no legal means by which the worker or the union can compel the employer to reach an agreement, and, in particular, no right on the part of the worker or the union to compel the employer to submit to arbitration. The employer can seek emergency interlocutory relief. This procedure does not

Compare And Contrast Federalism Under Fdr Politics Essay

Compare And Contrast Federalism Under Fdr Politics Essay Federalism, a political system which is aimed on establishing a strong central government -which in return is constitutionally mandated to share equal powers with its local and state governments. It sounds straight and simple but some of American historys most enduring and complicated issues have resulted because of this political concept. Before the passage of the US constitution -there were people at one side of the political confederacy the pro-nationals, demanding a strong national government as the key answer for bringing America on its feet after its independence from the British while there were some, pro-states- who believed in investing all the powers in the states as the only solution. The American constitution -later adopted by the founders of the country is a blend of these both sides embedded with federalism. Even, after this historical political settlement -there have been US leaders previously and now- who tend to favor and accordingly set their governments policies e ither being a pro-national or pro-state. For the purpose of this essay, I will be comparing and contrasting federalism under the administration of specific US presidents -FDR, Nixon, Clinton and Bush. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) came into power during the worst economic crisis-the great depression-in the American history. He expanded the governments power not just on central level but at municipal, state and local level as well -in order to better handle the loss caused by the great depression. His philosophy was no matter how big a government might get -it should have involvement and be responsible for its citizens .Its purpose should be to serve the common man on the street. His government was fundamentally dedicated on creating a political system which is largely focused on the welfare and care of its people; to help them out and pull the country out of this economic mess -where banks, stocks and all other major government financial institutions had collapsed. He formulated a program calling it the New Deal which involved on large scale federal-state cooperation in funding and power sharing. He initiated the welfare system, social insurance for the poor, elderly and the une mployed. According to FDR, the only way for the recovery would be if both the central and state governments worked together in joint effort-sharing equal powers. Through this transfer and shuffling of power, he established a system of dual federalism. He is the spearhead of many federal and state run programs that are running in the country today-directly affecting the lives of the millions living in here. I personally feel he was the first one to truly practice federalism in its essence- in his every day policy making and administration while being in power. When republican president Nixon took office, like many of his successors before and after him-had his own judgment about the division and assigning powers from the high level -national authority to the lower state or local agencies. He adopted a stricter managerial approach in the effort of making the overall governmental system more efficient and competent. He felt that the central government had been encumbered with unnecessary load of power and policy implementation which on the other hand could be carried out much more efficiently at the local government level. He based his administration on a pro-state approach-directing money and power from the central federal government and into the hands of smaller locally and state run agencies. He did this by mandating grants-in-aid into block grants -a devolution- by transferring power from the central side and giving much authority and money to the smaller state run governments. He believed that such a pro-state federalism will serve the community better as the state and local agencies have the easy access and better understanding to reach the areas in need. Bill Clinton like Nixon had main aim of making the federalist government more competent in nature but had a watchful approach towards granting more power to states. He was well aware of the importance of states having its self-sufficiency and powers but not at the cost of putting the central government at a vulnerable position. He viewed states as laboratories for implementing and experimenting policies passed by the national government. Although, throughout his reign, Clinton mandated strategies that gave more power to states- but ultimately favored devolution targeted towards making the national government stable and strong in nature. Unlike Nixon, Clinton was not in favor of smaller state run federalism. George Bush like Clinton shared a similar background before becoming the president. Both were governors but Bush era differed from Clintons in the way Bush adopted, shifted and granted powers to the states. Bush was an ardent advocate of small pro-state federalist government. Bush reversed Clintons proposed policies in regards to making states accountable and liable to the national government- in the matters such as setting national standards and rules for environmental guidelines. Bush made it harder for the central government to overrule and interfere in states decisions .He favored rule implementation by the states and less interference of the central government in the matters of the local government. The debate over federalism and the choice of being a pro-state or pro-national is an age old argument for our country. Our presidents- past and present may had differences in political opinion and formulated different policies geared towards handing more power to either states or national level but all shared the same admiration and regard for the government. They all agreed on the vitality and influence of government in a nation. American Federalism- the main idea seeded by the founders of this great nation -is yet to play many roles and touch our lives in many ways in the years to come.

Comparing the Treatment of Women in Hedda Gabbler, A Dolls House and G

Women as Victims in Hedda Gabbler, A Doll's House and Ghosts      Ã‚   In Ibsen's plays - Hedda Gabbler, A Doll's House and Ghosts - the female protagonists of Hedda Gabler, Nora and Mrs. Alving demonstrate how social expectations and restrictions of women impacts the life every woman on a very personal level.      Conservative social and religious leaders imposed women's restricted social roles.   Women had to be married; there was not another socially acceptable option.   After marriage they had to stay with their families and fulfill their social and moral duty regardless of their personal feelings or how their husbands treated them.   Ibsen presents his characters Hedda, Nora and Helene as victims of the patriarchal system of family and marriage that was supported by the church and society in general.   In these plays, Ibsen did not present marriage as a blissful state of love and mutual respect; in the case of Hedda and Mrs. Alving the main objective of marriage was to maintain a socially acceptable image.   In Nora's case her husband was constantly concern about what people might think about their family.   In each play there is an emphasis on the effort of the women to maintain the appearance of happy marriage regardless of how pitiful the actual circumstances might be.   E ventually, each woman becomes aware of her plight and takes a drastic measure to liberate herself - regardless of the personal costs.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Although Hedda's personality is much stronger than that of Nora and Mrs. Alving, she also is victimized by the prevailing social norms.   Hedda's fate results from her unconscious decision to be like her father.   Hedda is a woman with masculine view of the world.   Her hobby is to shoot guns which is an... ... Sensational Heroines in Mid-Victorian Society." Thesis. Brigham Young U, 1990. Fjelde, Rolf.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Henrik Ibsen: The Complete Major Prose Plays. 1st. ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill   Reyerson Ltd. 1978 Hemmer, Bjorn. "The dramatist Henrik Ibsen." http://odin.dep.no/ud/nornytt/ibsen.html Ibsen, Henrik. Four Major Plays: A Doll's House, Ghosts, Hedda Gabler, The Master Builder. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Ibsen, Henrik.   Hedda Gabler.   New York:   Dover, 1990. Lyons, Charles R. Hedda Gabler, Role and World. 1990. Twayne's Masterwork Studies 62. Boston: Twayne, 1991. Mazer, Cary M. "Hedda Gabler." http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cmazer/hedda.html. Salomà ©, Lou. Ibsen's Heroines. Ed. and trans. Siegfried Mandel. Redding Ridge: Black Swan, 1985. Worthen, W.B. Anthology of Drama. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company 1993         

Political Justice: Plato and Aristotle Essay

Plato and Aristotle had different ideas of politics and political justice. In The Republic, Plato creates the ideal city, which is needed to guarantee justice. He aims to create a peaceful united city that will lead to the greater good of the community and individuals. Unlike Plato who imagines the ideal city, Aristotle looks at actual cities in The Politics. He doesn’t want to create the ideal city; he aims to improve the existing city. While their ideas about politics and justice were different, they both strived to find a better way of life for society and hoped to achieve political justice. In order to define justice, Socrates attempts to create an ideal city, one that is healthy and just. Socrates begins by â€Å"investigating what justice looks like in the cities† in order to â€Å"go on to consider it in individuals† (Plato, 45). He believes that it is through speech that one will see the way in which both justice and injustice come into being. Socrates argues that people come together as partners and form cities based on mutual needs because â€Å"each [person] isn’t self-sufficient but is in need of much†: food, shelter, clothing, and other necessities (Plato, 46). It is in the need that the men have of one another in a healthy city that justice can be found (Plato, 49). In the Republic, Plato argues that justice is social, structural, and peaceful. He also believes that people function best doing one thing well. According to Socrates, people naturally differ in nature; â€Å"different men are apt for the accomplishment of different jobs† (Plato, 46). Socrates argues for specialization by saying, â€Å"one man, one art† (Plato, 47). He argues that this concept of specialization is the only way to make certain that each job is done well. Socrates goes on to divide the city into three distinct classes: producers, warriors, and rulers. Socrates believes a just city requires a division of labor in order to guarantee the stability of the city and provide the common good for the citizens. He states that, â€Å"each thing becomes more plentiful, finer, and easier, when one man, exempt from other tasks, does one thing according to nature† (Plato, 47). A strict division of labor is the only way to construct a just city, in which few laws are required. Socrates uses the analogy of the healthy city to describe how â€Å"justice and injustice naturally grow in cities† (Plato, 49). A healthy city becomes an unhealthy, â€Å"feverish† city when people become driven by desire and want more than the mere necessities of a healthy city. Some people will not be satisfied with the mere necessities; thus, relishes will be added. When people desire more and more luxuries, the city must be made bigger again and again because the healthy one is no longer adequate (Plato, 50). As the city grows, more land is required in order to be sufficient. At some point, one must â€Å"cut off a piece of [their] neighbors’ land† (Plato, 50). Socrates argues that encroachment will ultimately lead to war. He goes on to state that because of thisß inevitable war, the city will require Guardians. According to Socrates, the Guardians of the state must have a very spirited soul be very well trained (Plato, 52). He goes on to argue that a good Guardian must be â€Å"a philosopher in nature, spirited, swift, and strong† (Plato, 53). They must never turn against the city and must know whom to do violence to. Therefore, â€Å"[the Guardians] must be gentle to their own and cruel to enemies† (Plato, 52). To ensure that they will never turn against the city, Socrates believes that they must be educated morally â€Å"in speech† through the stories of the Gods and heroes (Plato, 54). Socrates argues that the tales should be supervised and modified if need be, in order to instill the idea that Gods can do no wrong. Only the stories that display bravery and dispel the fear of death should be taught to the Guardians. As a citizen, a Guardian must defend their city, make war together against any enemy of the city, and fight vigilantly for one another. While Plato believed that cities and state came into being because of mutual needs and social contracts, Aristotle thought otherwise. Aristotle views the polis, or city, as a political association or partnership. Aristotle opens The Politics by saying, â€Å"every city is some sort of partnership†, which â€Å"is constituted for the sake of some good.† According to Aristotle, the city must seek to achieve â€Å"the most authoritative good of all† (Aristotle, 35). He defines villages as collections of families. These different villages come together to create a good combination of both public and private life. This is a sharp criticism of the argument Plato makes in The Republic.  Aristotle goes on to argue that a city naturally â€Å"arises from [the union of] several villages† (Aristotle, 36). In saying this, he argues that a city exists by nature (Aristotle, 37). A city forms for the purpose of living well and directs itself toward the common good. One of Aristotle’s defining arguments is that â€Å"man is by nature a political animal† (Aristotle, 37). What Aristotle is arguing is that apart from the city there is no possible way for man to achieve the good life. Aristotle claims that what makes man different from other animals are that â€Å"man alone has speech† (Aristotle, 37). It is speech that makes possible the deliberation of politics and allows man to come up with the highest authoritative good. According to Aristotle, â€Å"speech serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful, and hence also the just and the unjust† (Aristotle, 37). In Aristotle’s city, it is speech and deliberation that justice can be found. Aristotle believes that the law developed through deliberation is â€Å"a guarantor of just things† (Aristotle, 98). In order to define what he believes to be a citizen, Aristotle first argues things that do not imply citizenship: honorary citizenship, inhabiting a place, sharing in matters of justice, children, and the elderly (Aristotle, 86). He defines citizenship as â€Å"sharing in decision and in office† (Aristotle, 87). According to Aristotle, a citizen is one who takes part in the decisions that are being made. In Aristotle’s city, the citizen is â€Å"whoever is entitled to participate† (Aristotle, 87). To him, the most important aspect of citizenship is that they are the foundation upon which the city is built. He believes that citizens have a share in the regime and should take part in administrating justice. In general, â€Å"a citizen is defined as a person from parents who are both citizens† (Aristotle, 88). Aristotle believes that as constitutions change, citizenship changes as well. Thus, there is different criterion for being a good citizen and being a good man. According to Aristotle, a good citizen upholds and respects the constitution. He claims, â€Å"a good citizen should know and have the capacity both to be ruled and to rule† (Aristotle, 92). In the Republic, Socrates gives three waves that he believes are necessary to  achieve justice in an unhealthy city. The first wave states that there should be equality among men and women of the Guardian class. He writes that men and women of the Guardian class are to share â€Å"everything in common† (Plato, 130). This wave not only deals with equality, it also deals with merit. Despite the fact that men are typically stronger than women, women should be nurtured in the same way as men and educated in the same things. Even though it may seem â€Å"shameful and ridiculous†, women are to be trained in gymnastics together with men (Plato, 130). After establishing the need for equality among men and women, Socrates moves on to the second wave. The second wave, Socrates argues, is that women and children need to be held in common. He believes that â€Å"women are to belong to men in common† and that â€Å"no woman can live privately with any man† (Plato, 136). Socrates is trying to rid the unhealthy city of private life because he believes that justice is social. The Guardians must live as one single family in order to reduce factional conflict. In order for the Guardians to live as one single family, Socrates argues that not only are men and women to be held in common, their children are to be held in common as well. â€Å"A parent will neither know his own offspring, nor a child his parent† (Plato, 136). The goal of this is to, again, rid them of the jealousies and rivalries that accompany private families. Socrates believes that this will make certain greater social equality and increase the unity among the Guardian class. Because the Guardians share everything in common, there will no longer be any concept of private ownership. Thus, there will be harmony and unity within the city. The third, and final, wave Socrates discuses details who it is that he believes should rule in a just city. The third and final wave that Socrates believes is necessary for justice is that philosophers must be the rulers. After making this argument, Glaucon demands that Socrates defines what he means as a philosopher. Socrates believes that â€Å"the philosopher is a desirer of wisdom, not of one part and not another, but of all of it† (Plato, 155). The philosopher is a lover of wisdom and total knowledge. Because of this, Socrates argues that philosophers are the only people capable of having knowledge of everything all together; they are open-minded and constantly curious. To further his  argument about the philosopher, Socrates states that the philosopher is a lover of the truth; he has knowledge of what is real instead of simply believing in appearances. The first proposal that Socrates makes in The Republic makes sense to me. There should be equality among men and women, but they do not need to share everything is common. There needs to be a balance of both public and private life. It would not make sense to rid society of private life entirely. The second proposal that Socrates makes does not make much sense at all; it would not work if we wanted to enact a similar system in today’s society. It is not logical to think that children would be better people and that society would be a better place if children were taken from their mothers at birth and raised by wet nurses. People need the bond of a private family, it is from family that children learn to love and be loved. The philosophers-as-rulers proposal that Socrates discusses makes sense but it seems extremely unrealistic. A philosopher is the last person that would want to rule a city. Overall, these proposals would every facet of a city. The proposals that he makes are intended to be extreme and ironic. Plato is trying to push his readers in absurd directions in order to establish that justice will never be found. The healthy city in Plato’s The Republic gives the best definition of justice. The whole intention of creating this ideal city is to define what justice is. Essentially, in his ideal city, there is no injustice. Because Plato uses his ideal state to show how justice and injustice naturally arise in cities, it is much easier to grasp what justice is and how it comes into being. Because Plato creates the perfect government, he is able to give a clear definition of what justice is. Aristotle’s definition of distributive justice: giving equal things to equal people and unequal things to unequal people can be confusing. While the healthy city may give the best definition of justice, it does not provide the best model for politics. Though it may not be ideal, Aristotle’s ideal city provides the best model for politics. In Aristotle’s view politics is only a means to an end; that end being the maximum happiness of its citizens. Unlike Plato, who places the burden of  ruling solely in the Guardian class, Aristotle believes that everyone should take turn ruling and being ruled (Aristotle, 219). Aristotle argues that the purpose of politics and that city is to promote the good life for its people. He believes that the citizens of a state should agree about what is right and wrong, just and unjust. Plato believes that philosophers are the only people capable of knowing the truth. Aristotle gives a better argument that everyone is capable of knowing the truth. He believes that politics is responsible for educating men in what is right and wrong. Just as Aristotle argues, written law should have greater authority than the rulers. Thus, leading to justice. Both Plato and Aristotle make good arguments about political justice even though the two do not completely agree. By creating an ideal city, Plato clearly defines what justice is. On the other hand, by looking at existing cities, Aristotle gives a good model for politics. While their ideas about politics and justice were different, they both strived to find a better way of life for society and hoped to achieve political justice. Bibliography Aristotle, The Politics. Translated with an introduction by Carnes Lord. (Chicago, 1984). Plato (380 B.C.). Republic, translated by G. M. A. Grube, 2 nd ed., revised by C. D. C. Reeve, Indianapolis: Hackett (1992).

African American vs. Caucasian Americans Essay

At first glance some people might consider this paper to be on the racial side, however it was all written by observations made. There are many differences between African Americans and Caucasians, some people don’t see the differences because of ignorance . You must read the paper with an open mind and take none of this to heart. African American and Caucasians function differently in public surroundings. When you see a young African American you usually see them in groups of four of more. However, when one of them gets into a disagreement five to ten more show up in their defense. They are a very close knit group of individuals. I have also noticed that when you see a young African American walking around they are usually singing, talking very loud or running around. Also when they are in groups they are very loud and take over the area that they occupy. On the other hand when you see Caucasians they are rarely in groups of three or more. To top it off when someone in one of their groups gets in trouble the rest of the group is nowhere to be found. Most times when you see young Caucasian people in a group they are for the most part within a normal speaking level. These two groups tend to act differently in the public due to their cultural differences. There are a number of differences between the churches of African Americans and Caucasians. At most typical African American churches there are no true sermons. The African American churches tend to do more entertaining rather than teaching. They also do a great deal of singing and dancing involved in there praising of God. They emphasize fellowship in their churches especially after church when they all gather and close the celebration with a meal together. However at a typical Caucasian church there are a few differences. To start it off when you first walk in you get a program detailing what will be happening through the service. They tend to structure the whole service around a sermon or story. The service every week is very predictable as to what will happen. The Caucasian churches are more there to teach the ways of the lord as they have interpreted it. Although not all the African American and Caucasian churches are along this line a majority of the main stream ones are.

The Role of Chief Justice of the United States

The Role of Chief Justice of the United States Often incorrectly called the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the chief justice of the United States is the nation’s highest-ranking judicial official, and speaking for the judicial branch of the federal government, and serving as the chief administrative officer for the federal courts. In this capacity, the chief justice heads the Judicial Conference of the United States, the chief administrative body of the U.S. federal courts,  and appoints the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. A Chief Justices Main Duties As primary duties, the chief justice presides over oral arguments before the Supreme Court and sets the agenda for the courts meetings. Of course, the chief justice presides over the Supreme Court, which includes eight other members called associate justices. The chief justices vote carries the same weight as those of the associate justices, though the role does require duties that the associate justices dont perform. As such, the chief justice is traditionally paid more than the associate justices. The 2018 annual salary of the chief justice set by Congress, is $267,000, slightly higher than the $255,300 salary of the associate justices. When voting with the majority in a case decided by the Supreme Court, the chief justice may choose to write the Courts opinion  or to assign the task to one of the associate justices. History of the Chief Justice Role The office of chief justice is not explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. While Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution refers to a chief justice as presiding over Senate trials of presidential impeachment.  Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which establishes the Supreme Court itself, refers to all members of the Court simply as â€Å"judges.† The distinct titles of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In 1866, Associate Justice Salmon P. Chase, who had been by to the Court by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864, convinced Congress to change the official title Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to the current Chief Justice of the United States. Chase reasoned that the new title better acknowledged the position’s duties within the judicial branch not directly related to the Supreme Court’s deliberations. In 1888, Chief Justice of the United States Melville Fuller became the first person to actually hold the modern title. Since 1789, 15 different presidents have made a total of 22 official nominations to either the original or the modern chief justice position. Since the Constitution mandates only that there must be a chief justice, the practice of appointment by the president with the consent of the Senate has been based solely on tradition. The Constitution does not specifically prohibit the use of other methods, as long as the chief justice is selected from among the other sitting justices. Like all federal judges, the chief justice is nominated by the president of the United States and must be confirmed by the Senate. The term-in-office of the chief justice is set by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that all federal judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, meaning that chief justices serve for life, unless they die, resign, or are removed from office through the impeachment process. Presiding Over Impeachments and Inaugurations The chief justice sits as the judge in  impeachments  of the president of the United States,  including when the vice  president of the United States  is the acting president. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presided over the Senate trial of President  Andrew Johnson  in 1868, and Chief Justice  William H. Rehnquist  presided over the trial of President William Clinton in 1999. While its thought the chief justice must swear in ​presidents at inaugurations, this is a purely traditional role. According to law, any federal or state judge is empowered to administer oaths of office, and even a notary public can perform the duty, as was the case when Calvin Coolidge was sworn in as president in 1923. Procedure and Reporting and Inaugurations In day-to-day proceedings, the chief justice enters the courtroom first and casts the first vote when the justices deliberate, and also presides over closed-door conferences of the court in which votes are cast on pending appeals and cases heard in oral argument. Outside the courtroom, the chief justice writes an annual report to Congress about the state of the federal court system and appoints other federal judges to serve on various administrative and judicial panels. The chief justice also serves as chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution  and sits on the boards of the National Gallery of Art and the Hirshhorn Museum.

Night Elie Wiesel essays

Night Elie Wiesel essays Elie Wiesel is basically the only main character. The book never really says his age, but I would guess he was about 16 or 17. He changes tremendously throughout the book. At first he is strong and has tons of faith in God. But as the story goes on, he loses most of his faith, and really doesnt care about anyone but himself. This book was about what the Holocaust did. People all over the world were devastated by this horrible occurrence. One example of the heinous acts of the Germans that stands out occurs at the end of the war, when Elie and the rest of the camp of Buna is being forced to transfer to Gleiwitz. This is a long, and tiring journey for all who are involved. The weather is painfully cold, and snow fell heavily; the distance is greater than most people today will even dream of walking. The huge mass of people is often forced to run, and if one collapses, is injured, or simply can no longer bear the pain, they are shot or trampled on without pity. An image that secures itself in Elie's memory is that of Rabbi Eliahou's son's leaving the Rabbi for dead. The father and son are running together when the father begins to grow tired. As the Rabbi falls farther and farther behind his son runs on, pretending not to see what is happening to his father. This causes Elie to think of what he woul! d do if his father ever became as weak as the Rabbi. He decided that he would never leave his father, even if staying with him would be mean death. There were many climaxes in this story, but I will only name a few. Elie's faith in God, is strong at the onset of the novel, but grows weaker as it goes on. When Elie's father politely asks the SS Officer where the laboratories are, the officer did not reply but instead he delivered a blow to his head and sent him to the floor. Elie watches the entire thing but doesn't even blink. He realizes that nothing can save him from the ph ...